Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Quickjager wrote: Scaling has nothing to do with stat-point efficiency.
Making them pass orders on a dice roll also just means they will be random. Just take it away entirely like the criminal or PDF scum they're supposed to be.
I remember reading that every planet in the Imperium were supposed to tithe 6000 of their best troops to the Imperial Guard. Lets look at our world. If you took 6000 from all the nations best soldiers, you would still have some good soldiers, actually lots of them left on the PDF. But the Guard should be that much better.
PDF can be high quality or just average to actual turds. Depends on the world and resources.
Penal legions, etc should suck.
The guard should work as a fine tuned machine. Conscripts (without reading their fluff) sound like soldiers that may not have the same level of interaction of a fine tuned force and should have some limitations (the lack of Orders is a good suggestion)
If the problem is that they are too good for points, perhaps give them AutoGuns instead of LasGuns and let them run out of ammo after x rounds of shooting. Lasguns recharge daily. Autoguns need ammo dumps.
koooaei wrote: We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
Unit1126PLL wrote: Clearly you don't play guard, because Russes are hardly mobile. They're not mobile enough to get away from a unit that charged them. 10" when the enemy was in base to base means they need a 4" charge (for most units) to keep it from shooting again. And the Russ is less mobile than, say, a Hammerhead, because at least a Hammerhead can shoot when it falls back. If you mean the Russes should run away before melee gets to them... where do you want them to go? Off the board? Most Russes I see are deployed pretty far away from the enemy as it stands and could still be turn-1 charged in many cases without a conscript line.
The Taurox carrying some Scions doesn't work 'well' it works adequately. Scions want to deepstrike, not ride around in a transport more flimsy than a Rhino and with less firepower than a Razorback. Rough Riders are awful - they have the same durability as conscripts for 10PPM, and all you get is better manuverability and also better close combat if you can actually survive the bulletstorm. Seriously, a tactical squad will wipe out a rough rider squad pretty reliably. Don't say "rough riders can protect our tanks from melee" because all they can do is get gunned down so the assault units can hit the tanks behind them.
[sarcasm]Yes, encourage us to deep strike more scions, spam flyers, and spam superheavies. That'll definitely make everything better and no one will ever think Guard are unfun to play against again. [/sarcasm]
Yes, I think you should move the Russ away before it gets charged. Look for an opening or make one. Don't depend on the screen to last forever. 10" movement gives you some options.
How are they constantly getting turn one charges? Deepstriking and charge boosts? Use a screen, but don't depend on it to last forever. Character abilities? Hey, maybe you could try taking snipers since you still have the best ones per point. Be a nice change guard has to do the same thing they force every other army to do.
Wow yeah maybe you'd have to actually try and get the charge and not just sit in place. How awful.
Less firepower than a razorback? Dunno, two autocannons and a missle launcher that fires twice per turn is pretty great for anti tank. Or a gatling cannon and two hot shot volley guns for infantry.
Seriously, you have options, you just don't want to use them because sitting in a corner is way easier.
The Russ doesn't have anywhere to go before it gets charged. We're locked in our deployment zone. Every game of 8th I've played with my guard consisted of me trying to use maneuver while the enemy banzaii charged forwards shrieking at the top of their lungs before locking everything in combat, at which point I don't care because I run superheavies. I'm lucky to get one movement phase before everything is in melee, if my opponent wants it to be in melee.
But if I did run Russes, I'd essentially be constantly falling back, because having 10 or so on a 6/4 means there's no maneuvering room.
I am not asking the screen to last forever. I am asking the screen to last 3 turns, which is enough time to use my firepower to open a hole to maneuver through, since an opponent isn't just going to give me one.
And yes, we can use snipers... but I don't know why you mentioned this? I never mentioned characters in the post you replied to...
Yes, less firepower than a razorback, because the gatling cannon and two hot-shot volleyguns come nowhere near the TLAC for damage, and the TLLC is far better against tanks than 1x mL and 2x Autocannon.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 02:48:30
Quickjager wrote: Scaling has nothing to do with stat-point efficiency.
Making them pass orders on a dice roll also just means they will be random. Just take it away entirely like the criminal or PDF scum they're supposed to be.
I remember reading that every planet in the Imperium were supposed to tithe 6000 of their best troops to the Imperial Guard. Lets look at our world. If you took 6000 from all the nations best soldiers, you would still have some good soldiers, actually lots of them left on the PDF. But the Guard should be that much better.
PDF can be high quality or just average to actual turds. Depends on the world and resources.
Penal legions, etc should suck.
The guard should work as a fine tuned machine. Conscripts (without reading their fluff) sound like soldiers that may not have the same level of interaction of a fine tuned force and should have some limitations (the lack of Orders is a good suggestion)
If the problem is that they are too good for points, perhaps give them AutoGuns instead of LasGuns and let them run out of ammo after x rounds of shooting. Lasguns recharge daily. Autoguns need ammo dumps.
That sounds incredibly clunky tbh AND restrictive.
I think, mathematically, we can devise a fairly simple solution, and am still a proponent of what I proposed earlier.
Anyway, to re-iterate my math:
A Space Marine firing a boltgun has a 30% chance of killing a Conscript with a single shot. A Space Marine firing a boltgun has a 11% chance of killing a Space Marine with a single shot. For every conscript slain after the first, another conscript is lost due to battleshock without a commissar. Therefore, a Boltgun actually has a 30% chance of killing 2 conscripts without a Commissar. We can then conclude that, with out a Commissar, a Conscript is 17% as resilient as a Space Marine, and with a Commissar is 33% as resilient.
A Conscript firing a lasgun has a 3.7% chance of killing a Space Marine with each shot. A Space Marine firing a boltgun has a 11% chance of killing a Space Marine with each shot. Therefore:
At 12"-24" of range, a Conscript without Orders has a 3.7% chance of killing a Space Marine, a Conscript with Orders has a 7.3% chance of killing a Space Marine, and a Space Marine has a 11% chance of killing a Space Marine
Therefore, at 12"-24" of range, a Conscript without Orders is 34% as effective as a Space Marine, and a Conscript with Orders is 66% as effective as a Space Marine. Do you agree?
At 1"-12" of range, a Conscript without Orders has a 7.3% chance of killing a Space Marine, a Conscript with Orders has a 14% chance of killing a Space Marine, and a Space Marine has a 21% chance of killing a Space Marine
Therefore, at 1"-12" of range, a Conscript without Orders is 35% as effective as a Space Marine, and a Conscript with Orders is 67% as effective as a Space Marine. Do you agree?
At <1" of range, a Conscript without Orders has a 3.7% chance of killing a Space Marine, a Conscript with Orders has a 7.3% chance of killing a Space Marine, and a Space Marine has a 21% chance of killing a Space Marine
Therefore, at <1" of range, a Conscript without Orders is 18% as effective as a Space Marine, and a Conscript with Orders is 34% as effective as a Space Marine. Do you agree?
A Conscript alone is 23% the cost of a Space Marine. Assuming squads of 50, a Conscript supported by a Commissar is 3.62 ppm, 27% the cost of a Space Marine. A Conscript with both Orders and a Commissar is 3.92 ppm, 30% the cost of a Space Marine. Do you agree?
So, if we average the effectiveness percentages: [Toughness + Long Range + Short Range + Melee / 4]
A Conscript alone is 26% the effectiveness of a Space Marine, for 23% the cost.
A Conscript support by a Commissar is 30% the effectiveness of a Space Marine, for 27% the cost.
A Conscript supported by Orders is 46% the effectiveness of a Space Marine, for 25% the cost.
A Conscript supported by both is 50% the effectiveness of a Space Marine, for 30% the cost.
Without orders, independent of a Commissar's presence, a Conscript is approximately 0.09 ppm more effective than it should be. 3%, basically as on-target as you can be.
With orders, independent of a Commissar's presence, a Conscript is approximately .6 ppm more effective than it should be. 20%, which is rather drastically off target.
Now, we're talking about two specific orders here: First Rank, FIRE! Second Rank, FIRE! and Get Back in the Fight! The other ones are irrelevant.
But, we can't make a change without causing a landslide of internal balance effects. If Company Commanders are raised in price by 60 points, it might make Conscripts the only viable unit, since orders would be too expensive on Guardsmen. Yes?
So, let's look at Guardsmen. 4ppm alone, 5.5ppm with Orders.
Guardsmen basically don't need Commissars, so we'll ignore them. They're 33% as resilient as a Space Marine
A Guardsman with a single shot has a 5.6% chance of killing a Space Marine.
At 12"-24" of range, a Guardsman is 51% as effective as a Space Marine, a Guardsman with Orders is 98% as effective as a Space Marine.
At 1"-12" of range, a Guardsman is 51% as effective as a Space Marine, a Guardsman with Orders is 97% as effective as a Space Marine.
At < 1" of range, a Guardsman 27% as effective as a Space Marine, a Guardsman with Orders is 52% as effective as a Space Marine.
So, for 30% the cost, a Guardsman without Orders is 40% as effective, .4ppm off.
For 42% the cost, a Guardsman with Orders is 70% as effective, 1.2ppm off.
Wait, why are we not upset about Guardsmen?
So, long story short, the problem is clearly with First Rank, FIRE! Second Rank, FIRE!, Fix Bayonets!, and Get Back in the Fight!, not with Conscripts. In fact, Conscripts and Commissars are more accurately priced than Guardsmen!
Now that we know where the problems lie, we can actually propose useful solutions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/27 02:53:52
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Melissia wrote: If you don't have enough firepower to wipe out a single conscript squad over hte entire game, I suggest you start playing games of equal army sizes.
This, basically.
Guardsmen are 1pt more. Anyone that brings 150 conscripts and 3 LRBTs can bring 150 guardsmen and 2 LRBTs, and have more 33% firepower to boot with the BS4+. If you can't wipe out 150 conscripts in 3 squads over the course of the game, how could you possibly hope to wipe out 150 guardsmen in 15 squads when overkill starts adding inefficiency to your shooting?
Those 150 guardsmen are actually *less* good than the 150 conscripts, assuming the same number of points spent on commanders to give orders, commissars to prevent running, and searchlights for +1 BS. Because buffs that are multiplied x50 on conscripts are way way better than buffs that are multiplied by 10 on guardsmen.
Now if you're assuming the "prevent conscripts from taking orders" fix has already been applied, then yeah this is a valid point.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I won't quote the entire post Katherine just put up, which is interesting if not always 100% relevant... but it also ignores searchlights, which is the mega-buff that put me through the roof and made me start posting in these silly conscript threads
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 03:09:04
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: A Conscript alone is 23% the cost of a Space Marine. Assuming squads of 50, a Conscript supported by a Commissar is 3.62 ppm, 27% the cost of a Space Marine. A Conscript with both Orders and a Commissar is 3.92 ppm, 30% the cost of a Space Marine. Do you agree?
So, in addition to whatever nerf you are proposing, commissars can only effect a single squad of conscripts? If not, nope conscripts are 3.31 ppm, not 3.62.
Remember all the times I tried to point out even at 5 points normal guardsman would be some of the best infantry in the game, and people ignored me? Ah, good times.
isn't a good formula for actually calculating unit cost, because it dramatically overprices generalist units. It needs weighting so that the best area of the unit factors in more than the worst. Otherwise you end up with well... conscripts. And brimstones. Units saving points in areas the player doesn't care about, and most would gladly reduce further to trim an extra point off.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/27 03:07:26
kurhanik wrote: So...the current consensus seems to be to remove their orders, remove their armor, and make them suffer more heavily from morale? What exactly would be the point of taking a screening unit that just immediately evaporates? Any one of those should be enough to fix the issue, though I doubt the armor one will be used, considering all guardsmen use the same model.
The problem is the scaling, not the stat line. Fix the scaling via either removing orders entirely, making Commissars hurt them more to stop morale (or a lesser mix of these two), or limiting their squad size. Make them size 10-30, and the scaling will be better. Make them size 10-30 and only pass orders on a 4+ and they should be fine.
No, those are all different solutions.
a) Removing armor makes them die faster. One possible fix.
b) Making them not immune to battleshock also makes them die faster
c) Removing orders is a curious choice, as it takes away from their secondary tasks.
kurhanik wrote: So...the current consensus seems to be to remove their orders, remove their armor, and make them suffer more heavily from morale? What exactly would be the point of taking a screening unit that just immediately evaporates? Any one of those should be enough to fix the issue, though I doubt the armor one will be used, considering all guardsmen use the same model.
The problem is the scaling, not the stat line. Fix the scaling via either removing orders entirely, making Commissars hurt them more to stop morale (or a lesser mix of these two), or limiting their squad size. Make them size 10-30, and the scaling will be better. Make them size 10-30 and only pass orders on a 4+ and they should be fine.
No, those are all different solutions.
a) Removing armor makes them die faster. One possible fix.
b) Making them not immune to battleshock also makes them die faster
c) Removing orders is a curious choice, as it takes away from their secondary tasks.
There's actually another post in this forum that's running a poll, and the consensus is to remove the ability to take orders. Which I'm all for.
But seriously, the main issue is [Toughness + Long Range + Short Range + Melee / 4]
isn't a good formula for actually calculating unit cost, because it dramatically overprices generalist units. It needs weighting so that the best area of the unit factors in more than the worst. Otherwise you end up with well... conscripts. And brimstones. Units saving points in areas the player doesn't care about, and most would gladly reduce further to trim an extra point off.
On the whole I do agree: being a generalist in 40k is worse than being a specialist - really all being a generalist does is it is more forgiving when you make a mistake (e.g. getting your Devastators into melee is less bad than getting your IGHWTs into melee, at least ostensibly). This applies to army too - the army that is kind of general and does everything a little bit is way worse than the alpha-strike shooting or alpha-strike assaulting army.
That being said... there has to be some consideration taken for the fact that generalists outperform specialists at everything except what the specialist specializes in, if that makes sense.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Martel732 wrote: I don't think that really fixes anything, though. Taking away quadratap but keeping the hundreds of shots or swings doesn't really address the issue.
"Hundreds?" it's 50, per unit, at most. Unless mean bringing more units, but then it's just the same as bringing more guardsmen, or more brimstone horrors, or more orks, or more gaunts.
If you are sitting within rapid fire of a full-strength conscript squad, the number of shots (barring Orders, which, again, I agree are silly) the number of shots will never hit triple digits.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 03:18:19
Unit1126PLL wrote: I'm lucky to get one movement phase before everything is in melee, if my opponent wants it to be in melee.
But if I did run Russes, I'd essentially be constantly falling back, because having 10 or so on a 6/4 means there's no maneuvering room.
Yes, less firepower than a razorback, because the gatling cannon and two hot-shot volleyguns come nowhere near the TLAC for damage, and the TLLC is far better against tanks than 1x mL and 2x Autocannon.
Please explain to me how your opponent gets his entire army across the board in a single turn. I'm really interested to hear this actually.
.... does the idea of not spamming a single unit not register or what? Have some russes to try and maneuver. Have some artillery that depends on screening. A few super heavies that don't care. Some infantry that can be ordered. A flyer or two to take tot he skies. Stop trying to run 10 of the same thing, spam is annoying no matter who does it.
Umm, no? The TLLC is a bit better against toughness 8 vehicles because it's a bit cheaper and both do the same rough damage (2.5 for razorback vs 2.4 for taurox), but anything toughness 7 or lower the taurox with ML (which isn't a normal missile launcher btw, if that's the confusion) and autocannons wins, both doing more damage and being more efficient for it's points. Plus it can shoot infantry if needed.
For infantry, I have no idea how you think a twin assault cannon beats the gatling gun and two hot shot volley guns. On MEQ the taurox is putting out 4 wounds vs 2.667 wounds for the razorback, and the taurox is cheaper by 4 points. On GEQ, it's 9.481 wounds vs 5.556 wounds, taurox still being cheaper.
The taurox is amazing. I have no idea why you think the razorback beats it in firepower. The taurox is better for it's points than any vehicle available to either of my armies I'm fairly certain
At some point, consider the fact that most of your army list is undercosted compared to other armies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit1126PLL wrote: That being said... there has to be some consideration taken for the fact that generalists outperform specialists at everything except what the specialist specializes in, if that makes sense.
It's all about finding the correct weighting. In this example you might weight the highest by twice as much, the lowest for each by half, and leave the other two middle values alone. This both takes into account specialization without ignoring the benefits of being an all rounder. That's a decent balance.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 03:33:42
Remember all the times I tried to point out even at 5 points normal guardsman would be some of the best infantry in the game, and people ignored me? Ah, good times.
But seriously, the main issue is
At 5ppm a Guardsman would be .6 of a point overpriced.
Considering other potential, incalculable advantages the Space Marines have, such as smaller squads being able to gain the +1 for cover more easily, the better base save meaning they get better benefit from cover than Guardsmen do, the ability to function in both melee and at range, combat squads, reduced number of deployment drops, and now, the ability to out-score any number of Guardsmen with a single Space Marine, I think it's better to err on the side of "slightly underpriced" than "slightly overpriced"
Comparatively, the Guardsmen take up more space, and far CP easier.
isn't a good formula for actually calculating unit cost, because it dramatically overprices generalist units. It needs weighting so that the best area of the unit factors in more than the worst. Otherwise you end up with well... conscripts. And brimstones. Units saving points in areas the player doesn't care about, and most would gladly reduce further to trim an extra point off.
Really? First off, I think generalist units should be the ones paying the premium for versatility. Flexibility opens up far more tactical options on the battlefield, and leaves one less vulnerable to targeted strikes and makes your own maneuver and position much less critical.
Specialization should come with the discount for being bad at everything else, because position and interaction with their fellows is so much more vital to them than it is for generalist units.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/27 03:40:57
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Making generalist pay in a game that rewards specialization is how we end up with marines that need gladius, deathstar, and recently stormraven crutches.
So your theory is exactly backwards. Specialists should pay for reliability. Jack of all trades fails hard in 40k. Always has.
Flexibility is worthless without efficacy.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 03:49:32
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Really? First off, I think generalist units should be the ones paying the premium for versatility. Flexibility opens up far more tactical options on the battlefield, and leaves one less vulnerable to targeted strikes and makes your own maneuver and position much less critical.
Specialization should come with the discount for being bad at everything else, because position and interaction with their fellows is so much more vital to them than it is for generalist units.
No, this is outright just wrong. A cheap unit that pays just for shooting power and a unit which pays just for durability is more efficient than a unit paying for everything, even though the disadvantages they have don't amount to anything. Conscripts and artillery are not disadvantaged by lacking melee power in the slightest, as the strategy of screen, fall back, and shoot more than compensates.
Not getting a discount for melee ability that, if you play correctly, you don't need is just bad. Because it doesn't allow you to play any differently. I am going to do everything to keep my devastators out of melee the same way I would my guard heavy weapon teams. The fact they have an extra point of strength and WS doesn't suddenly mean I'm not worried about them getting wiped or tied up in melee,. All those points on heavy weapons are still made useless, same as for any other heavy weapon unit, if I don't keep them safe. Being able to maybe waste a fraction of a point left if they get a lucky kill in melee isn't going to make protecting them less critical, my units still need to work together I am just paying more points for abilities I neither want nor need.
I mean, look at SoB. The fact they no longer have 3+ WS and got a point reduction for it has improved the army immensely. They are literally a better army than they would be if they had to pay for WS 3+, because you are putting your points to shooting anyways, and can take say crusaders if you want a melee unit to help keep enemy melee at range. That's more efficient than paying points to boost SoB weapon skill... when you still want to be shooting and will be purchasing separate melee units anyways.
Specialization is always better if you weight everything the same. Heck, it's still generally better even if you discount the lesser used areas somewhat, the gap just isn't so extreme.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 04:10:56
Martel732 wrote: Making generalist pay in a game that rewards specialization is how we end up with marines that need gladius, deathstar, and recently stormraven crutches.
So your theory is exactly backwards. Specialists should pay for reliability. Jack of all trades fails hard in 40k. Always has.
Flexibility is worthless without efficacy.
They don't even need that. Marines can do just fine with a stack of Razorbacks, Tacticals, and Roboute Guilliman.
And, especially with the ability to out-score anything right now, Tac Marines are very strong.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Really? First off, I think generalist units should be the ones paying the premium for versatility. Flexibility opens up far more tactical options on the battlefield, and leaves one less vulnerable to targeted strikes and makes your own maneuver and position much less critical.
Specialization should come with the discount for being bad at everything else, because position and interaction with their fellows is so much more vital to them than it is for generalist units.
No, this is outright just wrong. A cheap unit that pays just for shooting power and a unit which pays just for durability is more efficient than a unit paying for everything, even though the disadvantages they have don't amount to anything. Conscripts and artillery are not disadvantaged by lacking melee power in the slightest, as the strategy of screen, fall back, and shoot more than compensates.
Not getting a discount for melee ability that, if you play correctly, you don't need is just bad. Because it doesn't allow you to play any differently. I am going to do everything to keep my devastators out of melee the same way I would my guard heavy weapon teams. The fact they have an extra point of strength and WS doesn't suddenly mean I'm not worried about them getting wiped or tied up in melee,. All those points on heavy weapons are still made useless, same as for any other heavy weapon unit, if I don't keep them safe. Being able to maybe waste a fraction of a point left if they get a lucky kill in melee isn't going to make protecting them less critical, my units still need to work together I am just paying more points for abilities I neither want nor need.
I mean, look at SoB. The fact they no longer have 3+ WS and got a point reduction for it has improved the army immensely. They are literally a better army than they would be if they had to pay for WS 3+, because you are putting your points to shooting anyways, and can take say crusaders if you want a melee unit to help keep enemy melee at range. That's more efficient than paying points to boost SoB weapon skill... when you still want to be shooting and will be purchasing separate melee units anyways.
Specialization is always better if you weight everything the same. Heck, it's still generally better even if you discount the lesser used areas somewhat, the gap just isn't so extreme.
We weren't WS3+ Last edition, FYI. We just got cheaper. Let me find Codex: Witch Hunters, I'm 99% certain we were WS3(4+) at that time too. And, I'll point out, we've been Space Marines -4STR with nothing to compensate but a minor points decrease since the beginning of time. The important reason we're so good this edition is the fact that Storm Bolters are 2ppm, so for 1 point less than a Space Marine we can get twice the firepower and a Vanguard move, which brings us into Rapid-Fire range on turn 1 whether we're on foot or in a tank, giving us a 400% increase in firepower for comparatively small decreases in resiliency and melee ability. Our downsides are having more drops [unless we're using Repressors], having less long-term staying power, having absolutely trash buff scaling, only two and a half viable units, one of which is unique and the other of which is only viable at a rate of 1 unit per instance of Saint Celestine, terrible antiaircraft ability, and glaring lack of flexibility. We're really good and will crush you beneath our heel if you're willing to play our game with us, but if you change the game then we're going to stand and die.
Anyway, with regards to Generalist vs. Specialist:
It's far easier to invalidate a specialist unit through positioning and tactical play than it is to invalidate a generalist one. Do that, it helps, I promise.
It's much harder to invalidate a generalist unit through positioning, target priority, and force composition.
I don't want to call it a "noob tax", because that's very video-gamey and implies things I don't intend to about Space Marine players, but basically, generalist units should pay a premium for the fact that they intrinsically care less about what the enemy brought and how the battlefield is arranged.
I think that each additional role a unit can perform should come with a little bit extra cost. Or, to put it another way, each glaring weakness should come with a discount.
This message was edited 12 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 04:37:47
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
That's the thing with Guard and Conscripts. Conscripts, pairing up with other Guard lists, are excellent at forcing you to play our game. If you change the game on us, and make have to do things we're not good at, like moving, then we'll lose.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/27 04:43:19
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Anyway, with regards to Generalist vs. Specialist:
2 Specialists, one good at shooting, one good at taking hits, should together cost more than a generalist unit that is good at both tasks but not as good as either. Obviously. However, the generalist unit should also cost more than either of the two individually.
You didn't have ws 4 last edition? The guy I actually play 40k with most often runs SoB as one of his main armies(sorta, more witch hunter/demon hunter/inquisition, now with deathwatch added). I was literally misplaying against his army for the better part of two entire editions. Or maybe I just got confused somewhere later along the line, I'd hope I didn't manage to mess up over that long a time frame.
To a degree. It's more that generalist units shouldn't pay full price for abilities that don't benefit them much, if any. Devastator marines shouldn't be paying the same price for str 4/ws 3+ as tactical. Which you'll notice they actually don't despite being the same price point wise. It's why devastators have a "free" signum compared to tactical marines and access to the cherub for dirt cheap.
Basically, increased specialization should give diminishing returns over time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nvm SilverAlien was for some reason
Well, he was using them as an example of why specialization is better, but it's not a good example.
That's 400% increase in turn-1 shooting effectiveness for a fairly paltry 76% melee effectiveness and 77% resilience, for 1 point less.
This balance problem only actually applies to them when they're fitted with Storm Bolters, because Storm Bolters are hilariously underpriced in all armies, we just happen to have the ability to load entire squads with them. Storm Bolters were pretty decent upgrades for things at 5 points last edition, and sure they don't breach armor anymore, but by the Emperor, Rapid Fire 2 is a serious improvement. Also consider that they're literally a 1/4 the price of a flamer for almost the same offensive output with more range, but with marginally less overwatch potential. However, considering deepstrikers land outside flamer range, it's not like they're getting to use that overwatch potential all the time anyway.
In that vein, for tactica: STICK STORM BOLTERS ON YOUR TANKS. You won't regret the 2 points. Disclaimer: Use your brain first. Make sure the vehicle can actually make use of it.
Anyway, with regards to Generalist vs. Specialist:
2 Specialists, one good at shooting, one good at taking hits, should together cost more than a generalist unit that is good at both tasks but not as good as either. Obviously. However, the generalist unit should also cost more than either of the two individually.
You didn't have ws 4 last edition? The guy I actually play 40k with most often runs SoB as one of his main armies(sorta, more witch hunter/demon hunter/inquisition, now with deathwatch added). I was literally misplaying against his army for the better part of two entire editions. Or maybe I just got confused somewhere later along the line, I'd hope I didn't manage to mess up over that long a time frame.
To a degree. It's more that generalist units shouldn't pay full price for abilities that don't benefit them much, if any. Devastator marines shouldn't be paying the same price for str 4/ws 3+ as tactical. Which you'll notice they actually don't despite being the same price point wise. It's why devastators have a "free" signum compared to tactical marines and access to the cherub for dirt cheap.
Basically, increased specialization should give diminishing returns over time.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Nvm SilverAlien was for some reason
Also if you read his post he didnt say you were WS 3+
No she was right I legit thought SoB had 4 ws last edition. I routinely played against them and somehow messed that up.
Yeah, we've been WS3 (4+), at least since Witch Hunters.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 04:58:03
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Well, he was using them as an example of why specialization is better, but it's not a good example.
That's 400% increase in turn-1 shooting effectiveness for a fairly paltry 76% melee effectiveness and 77% resilience, for 1 point less.
Wait... which SoB unit are we talking about? Or marine unit? Or guard unit? I'm also confused how 400% shooting for 76% melee and resilience isn't as good.
Edit: Also (not that anyone but me cares) apparently since I let my friend use the old witch hunters army list, he was usually running all his normal SoB as celestines since he could use storm troopers as troops. So I feel less dumb now.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/27 05:03:06
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Well, he was using them as an example of why specialization is better, but it's not a good example.
That's 400% increase in turn-1 shooting effectiveness for a fairly paltry 76% melee effectiveness and 77% resilience, for 1 point less.
Wait... which SoB unit are we talking about? Or marine unit? Or guard unit? I'm also confused how 400% shooting for 76% melee and resilience isn't as good.
Dominions. It's not a good example, because, fitted with storm bolters, they're blatantly performing so far in excess of expectations it doesn't say anything about specialist vs. generalist.
And, as I said, it's a problem only with that one loadout. With all flamer or all meltagun loadouts they're just fine, especially when transport mounted, the way they're supposed to be and have been since I can remember, but Storm Bolters are just way too cheap and have the range to let them forgo the transport.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/27 05:09:22
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Dominions. It's not a good example, because, fitted with storm bolters, they're blatantly performing so far in excess of expectations it doesn't say anything about specialist vs. generalist.
My point was more about normal SoB compared to tacticals. Both are primarily shooting units, so losing a point of ws, s, and t for a 4 point discount is overall a good choice for SoB.
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Dominions. It's not a good example, because, fitted with storm bolters, they're blatantly performing so far in excess of expectations it doesn't say anything about specialist vs. generalist.
My point was more about normal SoB compared to tacticals. Both are primarily shooting units, so losing a point of ws, s, and t for a 4 point discount is overall a good choice for SoB.
Regular SoB are crap compared to Tacticals. We just run lists of endless numbers of Dominions.
Keep in mind that limitations in our weapons selection choices force us to close to very short range, so the lack of toughness and melee ability is actually a serious drawback.
Spoiler:
Katherine's take on SoB tactica:
Ignore basic Sisters, they're strictly worse than Dominions. Dominions need transports, ideally Repressors to cut drops and get first turn. Always use Celestine, and protect her with no more than 1 squad of Seraphim. If you run out of Fast Attack slots for Dominions, open up a second Outrider detachment, and keep adding Dominions. Use Retributors for your rearguard, spread them out to take up space and deny deep-strike area.
Scout Dominions before turn 1, make sure all transports advance, but be careful about enemy melee troops. Unload what you have to. Chose your targets and unload into them, try to cripple the biggest threats to you. Charge Celestine and her friends, as well as any empty transports into enemy units to lock off their shooting and prevent charges against your Dominions. Disengage if they don't do so on their turn, and finish them off.
Anyway, let's get back to conscripts.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 05:21:29
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
I'd love to trade my normal CSM for stock SoB. Way better. Two special weapons at five members and the point break, for a slight loss in close combat ability? I mean, even the lost toughness hardly matters, the four points cheaper mean they are still more resilient for cost. I'd actually consider using plain CSM if they had the SoB datasheet/cost.
I'd love to trade my normal CSM for stock SoB. Way better. Two special weapons at five members and the point break, for a slight loss in close combat ability? I mean, even the lost toughness hardly matters, the four points cheaper mean they are still more resilient for cost. I'd actually consider using plain CSM if they had the SoB datasheet/cost.
Let me explain this:
Regular SoB are 1 point less than Dominions. Dominions have Vanguard. Vanguard is good, because we don't get shot dead trying to get in range.
Sisters don't get Plasmaguns or Lascannons. Our longest ranged weapon is a Heavy Bolter. As you may have noticed, we only get Flamers, Storm Bolters, and Meltaguns for specials, and Heavy Flamers, Heavy Bolters, and Multimeltas for heavies. Note the one that kills tanks, and how it has 12" of range. That means we have to get to 12" of range. We are not only within immediate range to be charged as soon as we shoot, if you don't have vanguard, we have to survive 1-2 rounds of shooting to get to that range. We have guardsman-level melee ability, and are T3. If our alpha-strike isn't powerful enough, we will absolutely be forced to use both of those dump stats.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 05:32:20
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Regular SoB are 1 point less than Dominions. Dominions have Vanguard. Vanguard is good, because we don't get shot dead trying to get in range.
Sisters don't get Plasmaguns or Lascannons. Our longest ranged weapon is a Heavy Bolter. As you may have noticed, we only get Flamers, Storm Bolters, and Meltaguns for specials, and Heavy Flamers, Heavy Bolters, and Multimeltas for heavies. Note the one that kills tanks, and how it has 12" of range. That means we have to get to 12" of range. We are not only within immediate range to be charged as soon as we shoot, if you don't have vanguard, we have to survive 1-2 rounds of shooting to get to that range. We have guardsman-level melee ability, and are T3. If our alpha-strike isn't powerful enough, we will absolutely be forced to use both of those dump stats.
Dominions being better doesn't really change the fact I'd still prefer to have the SoB over normal CSM/tacticals. Give them two storm bolters and a heavy bolter and have them camp objectives in cover. Still more useful than my CSM will ever be.
Dominions are better in general due to range issues I agree, but i still see a usage for normal SoB. More so again than tacticals/CSM, who are only useful with the obj secured every troop will hypothetically get at some point.
Back on topic.... I don't really know anymore? I kinda forgot where I was going.
I think the overall point was that being a generalist often means paying for things you don't want, which hurts when you run into really point efficient armies that are paying for only what they need for every unit. Which in turn means, imo, that there is a limit to how much you can justify lowering a unit's cost by virtue of it being specialized.
That's part of why I think just nerfing orders isn't the best idea. The way most are using conscripts, it wouldn't matter if they had 6+ ws/bs, no weapons, and couldn't take orders, they'd still probably take them. So I think reducing their ability to function as a screen slightly would be better overall that just removing orders.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/07/27 05:37:09
Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote: Regular SoB are 1 point less than Dominions. Dominions have Vanguard. Vanguard is good, because we don't get shot dead trying to get in range.
Sisters don't get Plasmaguns or Lascannons. Our longest ranged weapon is a Heavy Bolter. As you may have noticed, we only get Flamers, Storm Bolters, and Meltaguns for specials, and Heavy Flamers, Heavy Bolters, and Multimeltas for heavies. Note the one that kills tanks, and how it has 12" of range. That means we have to get to 12" of range. We are not only within immediate range to be charged as soon as we shoot, if you don't have vanguard, we have to survive 1-2 rounds of shooting to get to that range. We have guardsman-level melee ability, and are T3. If our alpha-strike isn't powerful enough, we will absolutely be forced to use both of those dump stats.
Dominions being better doesn't really change the fact I'd still prefer to have the SoB over normal CSM/tacticals. Give them two storm bolters and a heavy bolter and have them camp objectives in cover. Still more useful than my CSM will ever be.
Dominions are better in general due to range issues I agree, but i still see a usage for normal SoB. More so again than tacticals/CSM, who are only useful with the obj secured every troop will hypothetically get at some point.
Camping in cover is harder than is sounds when your maximum range and the rest of the army precludes it.
Rets also aren't better than Devastators, because no Missile Launchers or Lascannons. We are, of course, better than HBDevs, and that is a case of specialists not needing that ability, However, remember that they've also effectively paid for protection in the form of Dominions pushing the frontline and keeping the enemy away from them, and in order for them to not be worse than HBDevs, we need to keep the enemy away and out of combat.
Anyway, if you really want your cheap T3 WS3 troops as Chaos, just pull Renegades and Heretics, or Cultists. You do have those, and if you're just looking for cheap things to sit on an objective, they'll do it better.
Back on topic.... I don't really know anymore? I kinda forgot where I was going.
I think the overall point was that being a generalist often means paying for things you don't want, which hurts when you run into really point efficient armies that are paying for only what they need for every unit. Which in turn means, imo, that there is a limit to how much you can justify lowering a unit's cost by virtue of it being specialized.
That's part of why I think just nerfing orders isn't the best idea. The way most are using conscripts, it wouldn't matter if they had 6+ ws/bs, no weapons, and couldn't take orders, they'd still probably take them. So I think reducing their ability to function as a screen slightly would be better overall that just removing orders.
Well, duh.
I am entirely against making them easier to kill, for the precise reason that Space Marines are only having problems with them because they want us, IG players, to just roll over and die in the face of their genetically-engineered awesomeness. [Sorry for the hyperbole, but even if it took twice the cost of a "tough" unit to wipe it in a turn, that would be unbalanced and make the game all about she-who-goes-first-wins. We have enough of that in the game as is, we don't need a further escalation of firepower until second move can't win.]
And, since I can mathematically prove that, for their cost, they're not too hard to kill compared to Space Marines, I'm not inclined to give ground to that demand. In addition, since the "in a vacuum" scenario generally favors the Conscripts over the Marines, I'm really not inclined to give ground.
Orders are the only scenario in which they can be justifiably considered overpowered. Changing something else doesn't address the problem, and only exacerbates other balance problem areas, such as altering drastically the intended balance of power between Guardsmen, Conscripts, Veterans, and Stormtroopers. It's basic problem-solving: if my airplane engine catches on fire, maybe I should fix the engine instead of redesigning the wings.
Finally, I see the resistance to their survivability as SM players being upset that IG players want to play in the sandbox a different way from the way SM players play. At least the way I see it, I'm hearing "I find playing against you un-fun because you sit over there and shoot at me". Well, I also find it equally un-fun when a half-dozen Drop-Pods/Tyrannocytes drop from the sky and crap out stuff that begins methodically demolishing my battle line before I even get to fire a shot. And, of course, Conscripts aren't beating Stormtrooper Drop or Guilliman and Razorbacks in competitive play, so there's that.
In fact, a lot of stuff that seems really overpowered, like Dominions and Conscripts and anything else that can be sort of annoying to fight against, isn't holding up to competitive play at all. I think that says something.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2017/07/27 06:13:16
Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades!
